Thank
you for asking me to answer this question. I think you may find it is
based on a widely accepted, though possibly false assumption, and that
therefore the answer is “neither”, and/because the question may be
wholly invalid.

If
you look at your other answers, the one thing you can definitely
confirm is that there is disagreement and confusion in each attempt to
answer your question directly. You may also notice that everyone tries
to answer your question, as opposed to fully considering that the
question itself may be invalid.

Where
any theory or hypothesis, such as ‘time’, leads to many conflicting and
untestable conjecture, then it is worth considering that with so many
alarm bells ringing, the theory itself may be wrong from the outset.

However
with time people, professional or lay, seem to keep trying to dig
themselves out of the hole... i.e. persist in the theory rather than
rechecking it from first principles, and actually applying the
scientific method at each step.

So, I would suggest you ask any responder if they can describe an experiment to confirm any suggestions.

Re my own answer and approach, I would suggest you...

1- check your most basic observations,

which I think you will find are only that things seem to exist, move, and interact.And,

2- You (actually) ask yourself the question....

“If
the stuff of the universe is just existing, moving and interacting
(including the contents of our own minds), would this be enough to
mislead me into wrongly assuming there actually is a ‘past’ or
‘future’, or thing called time”?

My
point being that while the idea of time is extremely useful in
organising the contents of our minds and lives, and in performing
observations and calculations, there seems to me to be no evidence at
all of the actual existence of a past, future, or of a thing called
‘time’ we are either moving through, or that is passing by us.

If
anyone starts from the ‘assumption’ that some other, extra, invisible
intangible ‘phenomena’ must exist to enable motion etc, and if they
happen to be wrong in this assumption, then they may fail to ever
consider other possibilities.

Bearing
in mind that we use science to find out how things are... as opposed to
trying to make things look how we think they are, it seems to me
that...

With
no evidence of a past or future ‘actually’ existing, and with a
universe just full of motion and interacting being all we observe, and
enough to explain all we observe – then scientifically – it may be the
case that the universe may literally just exist and be just full of
things moving and interacting.*

*
– Not also’ heading into a future’ Nor ‘leaving a past behind them’,
i.e. possibly, literally ‘timelessly’. And following the rules of
Relativity, but just in '3D' warped space.

(i.e.
‘we may be wrong from the outset to assume any such thing as time
exists (other than as a useful ‘idea’ held in the matter of our minds) )

An Experiment to check our observations and assumptions.

With
this in mind, actually try this simple experiment (and anyone else
looking for a possible ‘new’ approach to the problem of time).

-1 grab a sheet of paper...

-2 tear it in to pieces,

and as you do so, observe whether you see any actual evidence of a 'past receding'

...or a 'future' arriving'

or, whether you see things just existing moving and changing, in just '3 dimensions', be they stable, integrating or dis-integrating

If
you observe no evidence of a ‘past’ or ‘future’ existing in any way,
and if all you observe is that matter can exist and be changing, then,
logically, consider that this may be all there is.

Note
also, that although you may be creating and storing images in your head
as you do this, or anything, these images do prove that matter is
existing, moving and interacting, but do not prove that the universe
also creates a record of all events in another 'dimension'.

Seem
to jump to the conclusion that in looking at such presently existing
internal, physical mental images, is akin to "remembering 'the' past" -
and in some way a reason for assuming 'the past' may be some thing that
exists, or 'the past' is a valid scientific term.

(imo-
While internal mental impressions may be a good basis for the
hypothesis 'there may be a thing or place called the past', that would
need to be backed up by experiment as per the scientific method)

Hope that at least gives you a different paradigm from which to consider the matter.